Recommended & Related

About

The Trust Project is a collaboration among news organizations around the world. Its goal is to create strategies that fulfill journalism’s basic pledge: to serve society with a truthful, intelligent and comprehensive account of ideas and events.

Editorial Standards Page

About The Walrus

The Walrus was founded in 2003. As a registered charity, we publish independent, fact-based journalism in The Walrus and at thewalrus.ca; we produce national, ideas-focused events, including our flagship series The Walrus Talks; and we train emerging professionals in publishing and non-profit management. The Walrus is invested in the idea that a healthy society relies on informed citizens.

The Walrus publishes content nearly every day on thewalrus.ca and ten times a year in print. Our editorial priorities include politics and world affairs, health and science, society, the environment, law and justice, Indigenous issues, business and economics, the arts (including music, dance, film and television, literature, and fiction and poetry), and Canada’s place in the world.

Based in Toronto, The Walrus currently has a full-time editorial staff of fifteen, and we work with writers and artists across Canada and the world. Our masthead can be found here.

Ownership, Funding, and Grants

The Walrus is operated by the charitable, non-profit Walrus Foundation, which is overseen by a board of directors, with the support of a national advisory committee and an educational review committee. The foundation’s revenue comes from multiple sources, including advertising sales, sponsorships, circulation, donations, government grants, and events. More than 1,500 donors and sponsors supported The Walrus in 2017.

Ethics Policy

The Walrus is committed to reporting that is fair, accurate, complete, transparent, and independent.

Fact-Checking Standards
Stories that appear in The Walrus and thewalrus.ca are fact-checked. Our fact-checkers verify everything from broad claims made by authors to small details, such as dates and the spelling of names. Fact-checking records at The Walrus are archived in storage once a story is published.

The Walrus counts on its writers to make independent evaluations of difficult topics. The best journalism—no matter how descriptive, opinion driven, or narrative driven—is based on facts, and those facts should be clearly presented in the story. The Walrus is committed to ensuring the validity of an argument and finding balance between various perspectives on any given issue, while keeping in mind the reliability and motivations of individual sources.

Corrections
As soon as The Walrus is made aware of an error, fact-checkers will review the statement in question. Any needed corrections will be noted online at the bottom of the article—and in the next print issue, if the error originally appeared in print. The correction will reference the original error and supply the correct information and the date.
If you notice an error in something published by The Walrus, please send us a message at web@thewalrus.ca with the subject line “Correction.”

Veiled Sources
The Walrus allows the use of alternate names for real people only in cases involving legitimate safety concerns or where personal privacy must be protected for serious reasons. If the name of a subject or source is already public and associated with specific events, concealment may not be justified. We will be diligent in explaining a veiled source’s credibility, as much as possible without disclosing their identity, and in explaining why they have remained anonymous.

Editorial Independence
Journalism at The Walrus is produced independently of commercial or political interests. The editorial staff and writers do not accept gifts, including paid travel, in order to avoid any conflict of interest or appearance thereof. When a writer relies on an organization for access to an event or product, we are transparent about the relationship and note it within the relevant work. We also cite potential conflicts of interest—and, where applicable, credit funding sources—on the same page as the relevant work.

Contributors or writers are contractually obligated to disclose practices that may deviate from the ethics policy of The Walrus to our editorial team.

Editorial Standards
The Walrus maintains a style guide, which is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect current conversations about culture and terminology.

For any situation not covered by this policy, we refer to the Ethics Guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

Diversity Statement

Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists—and supports the educational mandate of The Walrus. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. The Walrus believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.

The Walrus is committed to employment equity and diversity.

Actionable Feedback

About The Walrus

The Walrus was founded in 2003. As a registered charity, we publish independent, fact-based journalism in The Walrus and at thewalrus.ca; we produce national, ideas-focused events, including our flagship series The Walrus Talks; and we train emerging professionals in publishing and non-profit management. The Walrus is invested in the idea that a healthy society relies on informed citizens.

The Walrus publishes content nearly every day on thewalrus.ca and ten times a year in print. Our editorial priorities include politics and world affairs, health and science, society, the environment, law and justice, Indigenous issues, business and economics, the arts (including music, dance, film and television, literature, and fiction and poetry), and Canada’s place in the world.

Based in Toronto, The Walrus currently has a full-time editorial staff of fifteen, and we work with writers and artists across Canada and the world. Our masthead can be found here.

Ownership, Funding, and Grants

The Walrus is operated by the charitable, non-profit Walrus Foundation, which is overseen by a board of directors, with the support of a national advisory committee and an educational review committee. The foundation’s revenue comes from multiple sources, including advertising sales, sponsorships, circulation, donations, government grants, and events. More than 1,500 donors and sponsors supported The Walrus in 2017.

Ethics Policy

The Walrus is committed to reporting that is fair, accurate, complete, transparent, and independent.

Fact-Checking Standards
Stories that appear in The Walrus and thewalrus.ca are fact-checked. Our fact-checkers verify everything from broad claims made by authors to small details, such as dates and the spelling of names. Fact-checking records at The Walrus are archived in storage once a story is published.

The Walrus counts on its writers to make independent evaluations of difficult topics. The best journalism—no matter how descriptive, opinion driven, or narrative driven—is based on facts, and those facts should be clearly presented in the story. The Walrus is committed to ensuring the validity of an argument and finding balance between various perspectives on any given issue, while keeping in mind the reliability and motivations of individual sources.

Corrections
As soon as The Walrus is made aware of an error, fact-checkers will review the statement in question. Any needed corrections will be noted online at the bottom of the article—and in the next print issue, if the error originally appeared in print. The correction will reference the original error and supply the correct information and the date.
If you notice an error in something published by The Walrus, please send us a message at web@thewalrus.ca with the subject line “Correction.”

Veiled Sources
The Walrus allows the use of alternate names for real people only in cases involving legitimate safety concerns or where personal privacy must be protected for serious reasons. If the name of a subject or source is already public and associated with specific events, concealment may not be justified. We will be diligent in explaining a veiled source’s credibility, as much as possible without disclosing their identity, and in explaining why they have remained anonymous.

Editorial Independence
Journalism at The Walrus is produced independently of commercial or political interests. The editorial staff and writers do not accept gifts, including paid travel, in order to avoid any conflict of interest or appearance thereof. When a writer relies on an organization for access to an event or product, we are transparent about the relationship and note it within the relevant work. We also cite potential conflicts of interest—and, where applicable, credit funding sources—on the same page as the relevant work.

Contributors or writers are contractually obligated to disclose practices that may deviate from the ethics policy of The Walrus to our editorial team.

Editorial Standards
The Walrus maintains a style guide, which is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect current conversations about culture and terminology.

For any situation not covered by this policy, we refer to the Ethics Guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

Diversity Statement

Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists—and supports the educational mandate of The Walrus. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. The Walrus believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.

Chief Wahoo has found himself at the centre of a legal controversy. His cartoonish red face, toothy smile, and feathered headband represent baseball’s Cleveland Indians—and, some argue, a particularly pernicious form of institutionalized racism. Last week, Douglas Cardinal, an activist, residential school survivor, and one of Canada’s most famous architects, filed an injunction against the Cleveland Indians, hoping to prevent their name and logo from appearing in Ontario as Cleveland faces the Toronto Blue Jays tonight. Today, a judge dismissed his application. But can—and should—a logo or name be banned because it’s racist?

Cleveland is the latest target of calls to change its racist ways, but it is not the first. The NFL’s Washington Redskins, for example, have clung obstinately to their title despite protests, citing their noble eight-decade history and how the name represents, among other things, “respect.” The Kansas City Chiefs, on the other hand, politely retired the worst aspects of “Warpaint,” a pinto horse ridden by a white man wearing a headdress. (A new horse parades around the stadium with a cheerleader.) Closer to home, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, an organization that represents Canada’s Inuit, has called on the CFL’s Edmonton Eskimos to change their name.

When these appeals fail, it’s sometimes left to the courts or the government to decide. In the United States, there is a law that prevents the registration of “scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks,” applied at the discretion of the Patent and Trademark Office. Its policing has resulted in the failure to register, among other names, “AmishHomo,” “Mormon Whiskey,” and “Abort the Republicans.” Two years ago, the office cancelled “Redskins” as a registered trademark. But the law could soon change: at the end of last month, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about whether the law violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The case revolves around whether Asian American musician Simon Tam can register the name of his band, “The Slants”; Tam argues that his band is reclaiming a slur in a way other marginalized communities have done. However, the court’s decision on the “Slants” case will probably also decide what happens to the Redskins trademark.

According to the patent and intellectual property law firm Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh, Canada has a law similar to that of the US: the Trademarks Act includes a section that prevents the registration of “scandalous, obscene, or immoral” marks. But as one might expect, there are fewer cases on the books. One of them dates back to 1992, when, despite objections, the Federal Court allowed the registration of the “Miss Nude Universe” trademark. Nude, it decided, was a “perfectly acceptable adjective.” As for the Canadian Trademarks Office, it’s inconsistently applied its own rules. Despite allowing the name “Fat Bastard” for a brand of wine, it refused to register “Lucky Bastard” for a line of spirits, forcing the conclusion that immorality depends on precisely what kind of a bastard you are.

Absent of much precedent, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has put forward some guidelines, including this: “A scandalous word or design is one which is offensive to the public or individual sense of propriety or morality, or is a slur on nationality and is generally regarded as offensive. It is generally defined as causing general outrage or indignation.”

That description—”generally regarded as offensive”—provides an insight into what is perhaps the key takeaway from today’s decision. The most important battle takes place in the court of public opinion, and it takes actions like Cardinal’s to spur that discussion, whether or not they’re successful. Every time an Indigenous person reminds us that, yes, Chief Wahoo is a racial caricature, it’s an opportunity for education. And the more that we as a society come to understand that these terms and logos are offensive, the less defensible they become. In time, perhaps even the onus of responsibility will shift to its true centre: it’s not names and logos that are racist. We are.

About the Author(s)

Alexander Tesar is a former editor at The Walrus. His work has appeared in Nautilus, Hazlitt, and The Canadian Encyclopedia.

Never Miss a Story

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER. Get the weekly roundup from The Walrus, a collection of our best stories, delivered to your inbox. Learn More »